Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:29, 8 September 2008

Archives

ME/CFS, Basic Income

Template:HEC userbox 2

NLT

Hello, Roadcreature. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your legal action commented above on this talk page. I have asked for this to be reviwed in line with the NLT policy. Thank you. --Verbal chat 17:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't find it. Seems a silly exercise, as I would be unable to respond because of my break. But legal actions should not be discussed at all, so starting such a discussion would be a clear violation and potentially very disruptive. With the guideline under review, I rather suggest making a mention of the way I handled things on-wiki on the guideline talkpage, since it may set a good example of what to do in the situation I was in. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 11:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Unblock

Roadcreature (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It appears that I was blocked during my absence, without informing me. I don't understand the reason, and would appreciate it if you would unblock me now. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 16:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

As you note below, "current policy states that one is not allowed to edit during legal action." This indicates that you are currently engaged in legal action against a Wikipedian. The block per WP:NLT is therefore endorsed. Please request unblock as soon as the legal procedure has been concluded. —  Sandstein  19:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The thread appears to have been archived, and may be found at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive472#Guido den Broeder and possible legal threats. Apparently, the block was placed for this edit, which does appear to threaten legal action against another wikipedian, as well as accusing them of hacking and such. No opinion on the block, but it looks like there was discussion on the matter. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 17:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Ultraexactzz. That AN/I discussion should never have taken place, IMHO. The current policy states that one is not allowed to edit during legal action. I don't think users should be blocked for following policy. The majority of the participants in the discussion seem to agree. The legal action was not a threat; it actually happened, and the evidence was confirmed as genuine. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Roadcreature (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Ahem. The legal action was concluded earlier today, as already mentioned. Otherwise I would not have edited! Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 19:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

We trusted you once. How do we know that the legal action isn't ongoing? Can you prove it? Otherwise, it's pretty clear that repeatedly being involved in legal action against members of the community is something that, even if it's technically legal for you to do, is something that the community might not want to deal with due to the sheer nature of having to deal with things like this, hence WP:NLT. — slakr 20:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I would simply unblock but the block reason given by Prodego points to a pattern of legal issues. So, I'm going to start an WP:ANI thread. In my opinion, if the legal action is concluded you should be unblocked. But I think doing so without discussion would be too controversial. Mangojuice 19:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't do that, you will only cause more disruption. Maybe you didn't notice that there already was an AN/I thread? Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 19:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I did notice that, but it's a dead thread, in the archives, and things are different now because you say the latest legal action is completed. I don't see why this would cause disruption, though. Mangojuice 19:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

So you expect that all the users that wanted me unblocked already, will now change their opinion and want me blocked now that the situation has normalized, just because you are joining? Are you looking to make a WP:POINT, perhaps? Or how is starting an entire discussion all over again, about something that is now in the past, not disruptive? Is letting me wait for your personal satisfaction not disruptive? I am convinced that you mean well, but please think this through. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 20:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, given that there was an ANI thread approving the block, another ANI thread would be necessary to remove the block; it would appear perfectly reasonable to me. I confess I'm not familiar with the issues at hand, here, which is why I didn't unblock myself; If the issue is indeed put to rest, I don't doubt that an unblock would be forthcoming. Sit tight, it'll work itself out. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 20:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's hostile. Ok, I think the issue here is that while I saw some support for you in the previous thread, there was some support for the block too, and I think it needs clarifying, especially given the new information. I don't think there was a consensus either way in the previous discussion. Please try to calm down and WP:AGF. Mangojuice 20:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for sounding a bit hostile. Please take into account that the reason for this legal action was extremely unpleasant for me, and finding myself punished for the mere mention of being the victim of a crime makes me live through it all over again, as will this new AN/I thread. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 20:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Roadcreature (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Decline reason is an invasion of privacy. Please get your act together. ] (], ]) 20:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Decline reason is an invasion of privacy. Please get your act together. ] (], ]) 20:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Decline reason is an invasion of privacy. Please get your act together. ] (], ]) 20:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

@Mangojuice: you see? The disruption has already started. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

@Slakr: Nobody is asking you to deal with anything. Instead, numerous users have explicitly asked you not to, and so says policy. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Copied from AN/I:

• I think something that needs to be made very clear before I feel comfortable unblocking this user is the fact that this situation will not happen again, he will no longer make legal threats and even if he has engaged in legal action with another user it will not be mentioned here. Tiptoety 20:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Never in my life have I made legal threats, thanks. I am more than willing not to mention any engagement in legal action ever again on en:Misplaced Pages, but that requires a change of WP:NLT. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Please copy this reply to AN/I Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe that was poor wording on my part, but what I was generally getting at was that you agree to no longer mention legal action that you are partaking in here. Tiptoety 21:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Tiptoety. I do in fact fully agree with you there, so I'm asking permission to indeed be allowed not to mention any legal action in the future, regardless of what WP:NLT says. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone asked me not to get involved? Repeatedly even? I've been known to have brain farts on numerous occasions, so if I missed that somewhere (repeatedly, no less), then please provide a diff demonstrating that, and I shall gladly trouble you no more. Please remember that use of the {{unblock}} template is basically like using a bullhorn to call for admins to review a block. It places your talk page in a category of requests for unblock, which is watched by lots of admins, and a bot on irc regularly echos outstanding unblock requests to #wikipedia-en-unblock. So, if you do not wish to have outside opinions by neutral admins, simply don't use the {{unblock}} template. --slakr 21:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't get involved means: don't open AN/I threads, don't block. It has nothing at all to do with you (plural!). Once you (plural!) have blocked, you (plural!) are obviously involved. Now, if you (singular!) think an unblock requests is a bullhorn, you (singular!) should leave the responding to someone else, since in no way you (singular!) can hope to be neutral. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Guido den Broeder/Navigation Footer

• Requests for unblock